Page 1724 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
They are dealt with in a much harsher manner, and they should be. They are the makers and the upholders of the laws.
One offence would have been enough by itself, but in Mr Duby's case it was his second offence, and they were not two entirely different offences under different Acts. They both related to being intoxicated while in control of a motor vehicle.
Mr Duby refused to submit to a breath analysis. As you are all well aware, as an ex-member of the police force I have come across many people who were in control of vehicles when they should not have been. Within the force it is known why people refuse to undergo breath analysis. They feel that the resulting charge for the rate of alcohol in their blood and the effect of that in court would be worse than refusing the breath test in the first place.
We do not know whether that was the case with Mr Duby, but it certainly is accepted as being the usual case for someone not complying with the law. This is really one of the major points here. Not only did Mr Duby commit an offence but also he refused to comply with the law. The fact that he is a member of parliament is bad enough. The fact that he is now a Minister of the Government makes it a great deal worse, because we all understand that ministerial responsibility is higher than that of a member, and it should be.
Ministers should be beyond reproach. There has been talk in this Assembly of whether, as Mr Collaery said, we should be paragons of virtue. Mr Wood mentioned that we are not all expected to be perfect. But I suggest that members of parliament should hold, aspire to, be responsible for and be expected to hold a much higher standard. This comes with the job; you do not have a choice.
I do not doubt that being convicted of two offences of this nature in any parliament in Australia, if it is worthy of the name, would result at least in the person responsible standing down from a ministerial position. Many people in this town might be surprised, when they hear of "resigning", to realise that we are talking about standing down from a ministerial position, not resigning as a member of this Assembly. A very good argument could indeed be made for the view that anybody in a similar situation should resign as a member of parliament, not just as a Minister. I feel that the standing down from a ministerial position is a very light result indeed. I truly believe that.
Much has been said in this Assembly about why the motion was brought on and why it was not brought on when the charge was originally found. It is a good question. I think we have a responsibility for not doing that, because we should have. I chose not to do so at the time. In the light of that, I have looked at it again and realised that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .